I'd say he's well informed in the crazy.
I'm not sure where the line is in regards to his sincerity versus cynical money making. With him it's not one or the other, somewhere in the middle. Obviously no coincidence that the Israel trip is timed with the launching of his new business. That's naked. And there's no doubt that in general, everything is about making money, and only about making money. And the people around and behind him would be only about that, certainly not believers (and likely not doubters either).
But when it comes to his sincerity, I'm not sure. Compared to some of his previous Fox buddies, you get the feeling he's comparatively super sincere. You can't help but think that Bill O'Reilly is laughing at his audience for the entire 23 hours a day that he's not on air, and you get the feeling that Sean Hannity is just... too dumb. I think Beck no doubt very strongly believes in most of what he preaches, believes very much in his own analysis of things. When it's domestic or wider international issues, I think that's the case, but when it crosses over to something like this - playing up so nakedly to Evangelical Christians - I'm not so sure. The fear is consistent, but the buttons being pushed, the dude is a Mormon, I genuinely have no idea of what he believes on that front.
I don't think he's stupid. Not at all. And as painful as he is to watch, he's good at it. You watch his old show, and he does the one hour live, unscripted, and is highly entertaining along the way, always pushing the right buttons and pulling the right levers as he goes. He's not an idiot. He knows exactly what he's doing as a showman, and judged purely on that, he's very good at it.
So that's where I'm not sure. He would well understand that he needs to be extreme about everything, as that's what people are buying into, tuning in for. Even if he believed it, he could never present a mild mannered, balanced show, hand holding his audience through a delicate analysis of a complicated international situation. That would never work. It must be THE END OF THE WORLD! And he can get away with that because his strongest asset is the fact that his audience are coming to him as a blank slate. If you know nothing, you'll believe anything. I never paid much attention to him on US domestic stuff, if I flicked over and he was banging on about the constitution and socialists I'd keep flicking, but I'd stop if he was on international stuff, and he was always well beyond reality.
There was always a pattern there too. He'd start off by painting some very broad and obvious strokes ("I predict you'll see more unrest in the future, mark my words, remember I said this") then he'll go into an hour of absolutely nutty detail about why that is, where it came from, where it's going, who's behind it, where with a mix of silly conspiracy and factual/historical error, then surely he's aware he's talking to an audience who in all reality know sweet fuck all, so surely he's 'aware'. Then he'll reign it in again at the end ("Remember, I told you that you'll see more unrest in the future, don't forget that"). Then, because that broad stroke is always something that is very widely believed or accepted, or simple common sense, when - shock! - that broad stroke does come true, for the potatoes watching his show, it legitimises all the rubbish in the middle, even though absolutely none of that had any evidence behind it then, or has come true in any form since.
But then he's certainly convincing enough. Enough to believe that he himself buys into a lot of it. None of it is pulled out of thin air, it's all just super extreme. He can find this website, or that footage. Pull some quote from some random somewhere. That the evidence against makes up 99% of what is available, doesn't matter. He can find that little piece somewhere out there from some equally silly individual. Is that deliberate, or not? Is he clever in a cynical way, or is he genuine in a nutty 'I Want To Believe' way? And anyone who believes in nutty conspiracies, generally, aren't so fussed by the details or facts, of whether or not they really make any sense or whether there are any 'real' indications of their existence. It's quite possible he is personally all-in on this stuff.
Anyway, this Israel stuff is different. There's been an explosion over the past 6-12 months in the US of a renewed STAND WITH ISRAEL thing that is, I think, not even a covert dog whistling, but obviously overt to both Evangelical Christians and the FREEDOM VS TYRANNY Tea Party types to further divide, and further ostracise anyone with half a brain on the topic. It's abusing a strong, base belief to cement a division. And there is no detail or explanation in any of it. INDY, you acknowledge the vague and grandiose nature of that speech, but that's how he (and plenty of other high profile types on that far right side) always are on this topic, especially lately. They give off the sense of some sort of renewed CRISIS, some kind of immediate emergency, an end game, when that's not the case at all. They're just playing with people. This speech is not unique.
And it's all tied in with, well, I'd say the far right in the US are dumb enough already, but it's a shame that there's this enforced dumbing down on top of it. All this anti-'elitist', anti-education, anti-experience stuff is as sad as it is dangerous. The Palin 'opinion' on Israel is worth more than someone who has spent 40 years solely on the topic, simply because she wears a lapel pin and her opinion and policy solely consists of STANDS WITH FREEDOM. That's fucking dumb.
I understand why Evangelical Christians are all over it. I understand why they would hate certain policies in regards to Israel. I understand why they push certain specific ideas dressed up as 'peace' and 'security', and why they will fight against anything that has any real shot at actual peace and security. And I understand why right-wing Israeli politicians will happily use them too. But if you don't believe that stuff, and you actually are quite genuine when you say you want to see peace and security for Israel, then there's no way you can support what they believe and want. At a macro level, there are probably four choices there for Israel, four possible macro scenarios that you could wake up to in 10, 15, 20 years. I think you can probably guess the one the evangelicals would choose, and in several ways it is by far the most dangerous one for Israel.
So either be honest and admit you believe the evangelical line, and you think the settlements should continue to the point of absolute domination - in which case you do not believe in peace and security for Israel, but something else altogether, and it's quite the opposite - or acknowledge that you don't believe any of that, that you do genuinely believe in and really want peace and security for Israel. And if you do... you have to see that a lot of the opinions and people you support on Israel are flat out wrong, dangerous even. Someone like Huckabee, he believes (and I assume Perry lands about here too). Someone like Palin, she's just using it. Someone like Beck, I'm not sure. None of them should be listened to.
stuff? Maybe it's just been a while since you've heard Israel defended unequivocally as an ally of freedom. Maybe it's been a while since you've heard from a public speaker that all we call human rights, law and liberty sprang from the Judeo-Christian virtues of Jerusalem to form the bedrock of Western Civilization.
